The Wesleyan Quadrangle I – Introduction

The Wesleyan Quadrangle (wikipedia) is “a methodology for theological reflection that is credited to John Wesley, leader of the Methodist movement in the late 18th Century.”

More good intro from wikipedia on the Wesleyan Quadrangle (WQ):

Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:

Scripture – the Holy Bible

Tradition – the two millennia history of the Church

Reason – rational thinking

Experience – our personal and communal journey in Christ

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that ‘Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God – so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’ ~ (The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church-2004, p. 77).

What is interesting is to try to describe the ordinal and cooperative relationships between these four – that is, their order of importance, and the principles that guide their use with the other ones. Often, the last three are examined in diads, each paired with the first, Scripture. But before examining these diads individually, I wanted to comment on Middlebrow’s theological review.

The original article he was reviewing discussed the error of one of the five solas, sola scriptura, in arriving at valid theology. While this cry of the anti-Catholic Protestant reformers may have seemed an appropriate response to the Catholic Church’s elevation of church tradition and papal decrees ABOVE scripture, this call to scripture ONLY is really not how theology is or should be done. However, such a radical call did expose the abuses and errors of Catholicism, and served to liberate people from its theological and political clutches.

Of course, this begs the question, if these same Catholics assembled the Canon in the first place, what difference does it make if you are still beholden to their bible? While this is another topic altogether, I will note that:

One traditional answer is that God providentially oversaw the assembling of the scriptures, negating the errors that man could introduce – this providence was clearly seen in the life of Jesus, who was not killed until “his time had fully come.” This idea is a little shaky to me, but it is offered.

The scriptures themselves were and are different enough from 17th century Catholic doctrine and practice to liberate people from Catholicism.

But this point needs to be made – to develop one’s theology from scripture alone, without the balancing weights of tradition’s vetting of bad ideas and preserving of enduring ideas, reason’s insistence on resisting obvious illogic and contradictions, and experience’s testing of our understanding, living by sola scriptura is a dangerous, if not untenable way to live or develop theology.

11 Responses

If experience, reason and history play little or no role, then why would Christ emphasize the living, breathing church as his bride?
Sorry, not getting my thought out well, but I think there is something dynamic and living about the emphasis on relationships, community and the church that sets Christianity apart from an entirely literature-based experience.

Ecclesiastes 3:19-2019 Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [a] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

This piece of scripture seems true…
It certainly does. But the main point of this book is that, when viewing the world and pursuing meaning and satisfaction without faith, as the author of the book does, life appears meaningless, capricious, and seems of little value or importance.
However, Solomon, considered one of the wisest men of history (though skeptics doubt he ever existed), sought such things without God, voiced the hopelessness he experienced in these pursuits, and then made some conclusions. Ecclesiastes is basically his lab records as he consciously and almost scientifically examined every possible path.
His conclusion? With merely an “under the sun” viewpoint, life is vain. But WITH faith, that is another matter, hence his conclusions:
– Enjoy your life, your food, your work, your wife
– Take calculated risks with your resources in order to get some increase
– Get rid of pain and conflict in your life
– Fear God

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with] every secret thing, whether good or evil.

I fear no God. I have no belief in God's so how can I fear what I don't believe in? as for the other 3…
– Enjoy your life, your food, your work, your wife
– Take calculated risks with your resources in order to get some increase
– Get rid of pain and conflict in your life
Skeptics have concluded this while holding the same view as Ecclesiastes. It just means you have to live life fully while you can.

That's ok, you can save it all up for the day of wrath. But one of the wisest men of all time has counseled you to consider that you will have to give account, and no amount of whining "I did what I thought was logical" will excuse you or me. The better tack is to say "God, have mercy upon me, a sinner." And start soon.